The road to 4K is well underway, and it looks like Sony and its PS4 (Which is rumored to be released as early as the end of the year) will be right at the forefront of the big push:

Quote:

Since 3D isn’t gaining much traction, Sony... is betting on 4K as a way to get consumers to upgrade their home entertainment devices. Sony is already selling 4K Blu-ray players for $200, and the company’s next-generation PlayStation 4 will indeed support 4K resolution playback as well, a source tells us. Like the PlayStation did with Blu-ray, Sony is betting that by including the ability to support 4K resolution media — games and movies — consumers will have an incentive to upgrade to new 4K television sets.

Seriously. If this happens, I hope it has more to do with non-gaming media.

But I think I see a big reason why Sony might want to do this (other than to sell a new display ecosystem to people). Wouldn't this gives them a way to outstrip most bandwidth capacities for OTA and cable broadcast? The hurdle to physical media and high-end display tech is that very similar quality content is available through cable subs and streaming content. But if they can push 4K successfully, it might differentiate physical media from digital streaming/broadcast.

I share your worry, T2, that game publishers might use raw resolution to sell games. It makes for pretty trailers and kiosks, but it makes for ****** long-term performance. Give me 1080p/60fps any day over 4K resolution at sub-par framerates (20-30fps). Unfortunately, I think most developers and publishers (and, frankly, gamers too) think that ~30fps is "good enough." The common understanding among most developers seems to be that console games should aim for 30fps, and PC versions should be optimized for 60fps. The pessimist in me doesn't see that paradigm changing anytime soon.

I don't think the hardware will be able to push games at the fidelity people except at 4k.
Just to put things into perspective, you need a $500+ video card to run today's games (as opposed to tomorrow's games, which will look better) well at 2560x1440 and 4K is about 2.25 times the pixels.

my 570SC was only 350 when i bought it and i can play new games just fine

Seriously. If this happens, I hope it has more to do with non-gaming media.

But I think I see a big reason why Sony might want to do this (other than to sell a new display ecosystem to people). Wouldn't this gives them a way to outstrip most bandwidth capacities for OTA and cable broadcast? The hurdle to physical media and high-end display tech is that very similar quality content is available through cable subs and streaming content. But if they can push 4K successfully, it might differentiate physical media from digital streaming/broadcast.

I share your worry, T2, that game publishers might use raw resolution to sell games. It makes for pretty trailers and kiosks, but it makes for ****** long-term performance. Give me 1080p/60fps any day over 4K resolution at sub-par framerates (20-30fps). Unfortunately, I think most developers and publishers (and, frankly, gamers too) think that ~30fps is "good enough." The common understanding among most developers seems to be that console games should aim for 30fps, and PC versions should be optimized for 60fps. The pessimist in me doesn't see that paradigm changing anytime soon.

The share of 60fps games is only increasing, so I'm cautiously optimistic. In either case, aiming for a high frame rate lets them get away with lower quality assets, which should be cheaper to produce.

What really needs to happen is more middleware/engines that are focused on speed. The big ones today - crytek, unreal, frostbite - these all place a premium on quality first, performance second. id needs to get back in the game.

I like having the option. Some simpler games will look absolutely stunning at 4k. Some games might choose to run at 'only' 2k and scale. Some games might run 1080p@60. Flexibility never hurts, and as long as the scaling is in hardware this time (and good) the higher it can go the better.

I like the move forward, but really, do any of us sit 2.5 feet away from a 50" screen for this to be necessary? I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but this is a big time marketing act with very little effectiveness in practice, not to mention that filmmakers will not be upgrading their film gear to 4k for at least a decade (pure conjecture). Also, I would HATE to be a make-up artist in film when that kind of resolution takes hold. So, yea, it's cool, but 4k isn't going to really be main stream until maybe PS6.

I like the move forward, but really, do any of us sit 2.5 feet away from a 50" screen for this to be necessary? I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but this is a big time marketing act with very little effectiveness in practice, not to mention that filmmakers will not be upgrading their film gear to 4k for at least a decade (pure conjecture). Also, I would HATE to be a make-up artist in film when that kind of resolution takes hold. So, yea, it's cool, but 4k isn't going to really be main stream until maybe PS6.
I'm an Xbox guy anyway.

Exactly. 4k on a typical ~50" flat panel TV is going to be of VERY, VERY little benefit. You need a BIG screen AND CLOSE seating to really even begin to take advantage of 4k.

I like having the option. Some simpler games will look absolutely stunning at 4k. Some games might choose to run at 'only' 2k and scale. Some games might run 1080p@60. Flexibility never hurts, and as long as the scaling is in hardware this time (and good) the higher it can go the better.

Exactly. And I can't wait to sample Blu-Ray movies that were already shot in 4K...some even in 8K on the PS4 or a new Blu-Ray player. I even think upscaled 1080P movies to 4K could be huge. Just look how 1080 upconversion improved DVD's. This is very big for Sony. It could bring them back IMO.

Exactly. 4k on a typical ~50" flat panel TV is going to be of VERY, VERY little benefit. You need a BIG screen AND CLOSE seating to really even begin to take advantage of 4k.

Not really, a 4k projector at 80 to 100 inches would look freaking amazing and you wouldn't have to sit that close.

Realize that this console is coming out next year (no way it comes out this year) and is being designed to last ~6 years as a front-line console, so we're talking almost to 2020. Allowing this capability, even if it is limited to less rendering intensive applications, is smart.

I like the move forward, but really, do any of us sit 2.5 feet away from a 50" screen for this to be necessary? I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but this is a big time marketing act with very little effectiveness in practice, not to mention that filmmakers will not be upgrading their film gear to 4k for at least a decade (pure conjecture). Also, I would HATE to be a make-up artist in film when that kind of resolution takes hold. So, yea, it's cool, but 4k isn't going to really be main stream until maybe PS6.
I'm an Xbox guy anyway.

Film already is 4K (the masters, not copies they show in film theaters). Movies are being shot with 4K video cameras now also. I've been watching 4K movies (video projectors) at my local theaters for at least a year. What is even better than the 4K is the deeper color depth at the theaters.

Not really, a 4k projector at 80 to 100 inches would look freaking amazing and you wouldn't have to sit that close.
Realize that this console is coming out next year (no way it comes out this year) and is being designed to last ~6 years as a front-line console, so we're talking almost to 2020. Allowing this capability, even if it is limited to less rendering intensive applications, is smart.

You need one more variable for this to work. The effectiveness of resolution is not only a function of the distance from the screen, but of the screen size as well. Assuming you mean 120" by a "4k projector," the viewer (or gamer, in this case), would need to sit 7.5' or closer to notice the benefits of 4k resolution. On top of that, for movies, the source would have to be filmed in 4k (very expensive to do, I can think of one director off the top of my head that does it - James Cameron) to truly benefit from the resolution. We all know upscaled resolution is not true resolution - it looks soft. Games, however, can be programmed in 4k, but expect them to be shorter if the discs stay the same. Higher resolution means more space required to store the data. So, if the disc type remains constant expect "smaller" games or stopping game play to pop in another disc (a la PS1 RPGs).

So, I stand by my original post. This is big time marketing with little use in practice. Most consumers don't have a viewing screen large enough, nor do they sit close enough for this to be effective. Throw in the lack of native media and an industry that is already losing profit margin (Hollywood) with their releases (upgrading and filming in 4k is expensive) and the only 4k media we have left are games. But - again - most of us don't have the environment at home to need the increased resolution.

Film already is 4K (the masters, not copies they show in film theaters). Movies are being shot with 4K video cameras now also. I've been watching 4K movies (video projectors) at my local theaters for at least a year. What is even better than the 4K is the deeper color depth at the theaters.

That's great - for movie theaters. But, do you hook up your PS3 to a movie theater at your house? Also, color accuracy has noting to do with the number of pixels.

Holy $hit, alredy 20 posts and no one has even said anything about the article stating that Sony already sells BD players that do 4K...NO THEY DON'T!!! (scaling to 4K is not even close to the same) Someone please email Jonathan S. Geller and this this guy straight...last I heard they were still deciding if 4K movies could go on a quad-BD disk (even in stripped down no-trailers/extras version) or if they needed to develop some Star Trek holographic storage business to hold it all. I have a 120" screen and I've got my credit card ready for TRUE 4K. (seriously though, we need to see if they can revise that release, its misleading and I'm afraid Sony is doing this on purpose so they can release an unfinished product and try to firmware-band-aid it later, thats a no-no)

No, no. That's not it at all! Just read my posts above and it will make sense. I hope you can afford it, I think it would be cool! Being practical, however, is another story.

Well sadly, I can't afford it. Or I should say, I don't want to blow my life savings on a TV. So maybe I'll get my 65" after all and then upgrade again when a 65" OLED with 4K res can be had for a reasonable $4000. Anyone care to guess a year on that? I say 2016.

Well sadly, I can't afford it. Or I should say, I don't want to blow my life savings on a TV. So maybe I'll get my 65" after all and then upgrade again when a 65" OLED with 4K res can be had for a reasonable $4000. Anyone care to guess a year on that? I say 2016.

Honestly? You'll never need 4k for your house. 4k for movie theaters is practical, and pretty exciting. 4K for the home - not as much. Check out this article from CNET. It gets a little "numbery," but if you can get through it, it makes sense.

Seriously. If this happens, I hope it has more to do with non-gaming media.
But I think I see a big reason why Sony might want to do this (other than to sell a new display ecosystem to people). Wouldn't this gives them a way to outstrip most bandwidth capacities for OTA and cable broadcast? The hurdle to physical media and high-end display tech is that very similar quality content is available through cable subs and streaming content. But if they can push 4K successfully, it might differentiate physical media from digital streaming/broadcast.
I share your worry, T2, that game publishers might use raw resolution to sell games. It makes for pretty trailers and kiosks, but it makes for ****** long-term performance. Give me 1080p/60fps any day over 4K resolution at sub-par framerates (20-30fps). Unfortunately, I think most developers and publishers (and, frankly, gamers too) think that ~30fps is "good enough." The common understanding among most developers seems to be that console games should aim for 30fps, and PC versions should be optimized for 60fps. The pessimist in me doesn't see that paradigm changing anytime soon.

It be worse than that. Try 15-30 FPS. 4K is about 4X the pixels of 1080P.

If you're very, very lucky you might get late PSN titles running at it. Maybe. And really, unless it's a dedicated hardware scaler in the thing, the cost to upres lower res games would not be marginal and would hit performance. (Think how COD runs nativly at a lower resolution and is upscaled to 720P)

I want 1080P @ 60FPS with better shaders and 4XAA, with better AI, physics, and more memory for asset allocation You know, stuff that actually goes to improve visuals and gameplay.

At this point resolution is diminishing returns for exponential costs in rendering (in videogames, and somewhat in media). We already had to go through a generation of sub 720P with no AA and poor framerates. Never again please.